The AVFC FFP thread

[ender4]

1 hour ago, cyrusr said:

Anyone else noticed that over the past 4/5 months or so there has been an extra £52 million in capital put into the club? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03375789/filing-history

 

 

Now I am pretty sure that's one way to deal with the issues of FFP and ensuring there is money for the January transfer window... 

injecting capital into the club doesn't affect FFP in any way.

Only increasing/decreasing income or increasing/decreasing costs does.  

[cyrusr]

36 minutes ago, ender4 said:

injecting capital into the club doesn't affect FFP in any way.

Only increasing/decreasing income or increasing/decreasing costs does.  

Isn't there an increase in relation to how much deficit you are allowed if it is backed by capital? Thought it would counteract the spending as it is money from within the club rather than loans, which was one of the reasons why FFP came into existence, to stop clubs from borrowing their way to the top (see Leeds). 

[mjmooney]

38 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Isn't there an increase in relation to how much deficit you are allowed if it is backed by capital? Thought it would counteract the spending as it is money from within the club rather than loans, which was one of the reasons why FFP came into existence, to stop clubs from borrowing their way to the top (see Leeds). 

Well if anybody knows, Purslow does. 

[tomav84]

Apparently city are now being investigated after 'leaked documents' indicate what everyone has known they've been doing for years. seems that they're finally clamping down on the various loopholes

Link

Quote

Manchester City could be banned from the Champions League after an independent investigation into alleged Financial Fair Play (FFP) breaches.

Recently published documents from Football Leaks, including emails from club executives, suggest that almost £60million was paid from the club’s owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group, when it should have been paid by airline sponsor Etihad.

 

[mikeyjavfc]

4 hours ago, tomav84 said:

Apparently city are now being investigated after 'leaked documents' indicate what everyone has known they've been doing for years. seems that they're finally clamping down on the various loopholes

Link

 

The moral is: be as dodgy as you like as long as you cover your tracks and don't get hacked!

[TRO]

23 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Well if anybody knows, Purslow does. 

Like all these things....Its knowing your way around the gymnastics of arguing your point.

He was involved in the creation, so he knows all the nebulous points he can argue on....He will major our business on those points, to which he knows he has a fair chance of winning.

The devil is in the detail, he knows which arguments/detail to avoid in order circumnavigate interpretation.

We are fortunate enough to have a guy with such nous.

[DaveAV1]

The majority of Championship clubs are unhappy about the new TV contract that the EFL has signed without properly consulting them. Surely the clubs would be within their rights to say that the EFL have restricted their income by underselling them and if they don’t meet ffp restrictions then the fault, partially at least, lies at the door of the EFL. 

I’d imagine some if not all of the Championship clubs will be talking to their very expensive lawyers if the EFL try to throw their weight about too much. 

[Cjay]

I have a question for you

Nobody seems sure whats going on with FFP, most thought you were fooked without sales or promotion this season, that may still be the case (its hard to see how it isnt tbf) .

But your new people are making all the right noises and saying there will be funds in January, without really clarifying how all this FFP stuff has gone away.

Everyone seems very happy with the form under Dean Smith, the football is pleasing, everything is great, but lingering doubts about your defence and goalies seem to linger. 

But anyways, here are the questions.

The owners give Smith money to spend in January, say £15mil, he gets in decent defenders and a goalie (decent not worldbeaters), you are in the same position as you are now , same points to top and bottom etc. 

1) Would you be accepting if Jack Grealish was sold to fund these purchases? 

2) If nobody was sold would you be comfortable spending this money knowing that you really could be screwed massively at the end of the season? After all spending guarantees nothing as we both know and there is no guarantees Smith would get you up.

3) You dont spend and dont get promoted but you now have a clean FFP slate, a few players have to be sold including Grealish to balance the books but now you can spend again FFP free, as hard as that would be would that be the best case scenario under the circumstances? 

 

[Tomaszk]

2 hours ago, Cjay said:

1) Would you be accepting if Jack Grealish was sold to fund these purchases? 

2) If nobody was sold would you be comfortable spending this money knowing that you really could be screwed massively at the end of the season? After all spending guarantees nothing as we both know and there is no guarantees Smith would get you up.

3) You dont spend and dont get promoted but you now have a clean FFP slate, a few players have to be sold including Grealish to balance the books but now you can spend again FFP free, as hard as that would be would that be the best case scenario under the circumstances? 

 

1) For £40m+ yes. I'd be gutted though.

2) Yeah because I trust the guy in charge. Probably unwise, but I'm feeling good about Aston Villa atm. We've got a lot of huge earners off the wage bill at the end of the season.

3) Don't see a question there. Sounds alright if we don't go up I suppose yeah. Don't want to sell Grealish though. I don't think he'll be itching to leave either, especially if we keep playing like this.

[romavillan]

2 hours ago, Cjay said:

I have a question for you

Nobody seems sure whats going on with FFP, most thought you were fooked without sales or promotion this season, that may still be the case (its hard to see how it isnt tbf) .

But your new people are making all the right noises and saying there will be funds in January, without really clarifying how all this FFP stuff has gone away.

Everyone seems very happy with the form under Dean Smith, the football is pleasing, everything is great, but lingering doubts about your defence and goalies seem to linger. 

But anyways, here are the questions.

The owners give Smith money to spend in January, say £15mil, he gets in decent defenders and a goalie (decent not worldbeaters), you are in the same position as you are now , same points to top and bottom etc. 

1) Would you be accepting if Jack Grealish was sold to fund these purchases? 

2) If nobody was sold would you be comfortable spending this money knowing that you really could be screwed massively at the end of the season? After all spending guarantees nothing as we both know and there is no guarantees Smith would get you up.

3) You dont spend and dont get promoted but you now have a clean FFP slate, a few players have to be sold including Grealish to balance the books but now you can spend again FFP free, as hard as that would be would that be the best case scenario under the circumstances? 

 

1. No way, Jack's a big part of the brummy revolution that' happening, I can't see him wanting to go now either, even if we don't get up this year.

2. If your premise is true then that would be the kind of reckless bullshit the last regime went for and not at all like what this new regime is saying they are all about. So no not comfortable with more recklessness.

3. If Jack's included then no I'm not happy, or McGinn or any of the younger more talented parts of the squad. Richards will be going out to pasture this summer, some other big earners are near the end of contracts, there's other ways saving will be made. Selling older players that still have some value I wouldn't be against. I'd back the new regime + Smith to invest better in getting the tools together to build a long term project which would see us go up and stay up.

The defence and the keep might be sorted out by recalling Elphick, signing a good young CB which doesn't break the bank and ditto for a keeper. Improving what we have as cover is simple as we don't have cover, but even gettign players good enough for the first XI with decent scouting and safe in the knowledge that Smith improves players we shouldn't have to break the bank.

Lots of assumptions made about FFP, Purslow was part of bringing it in, I'm not sure why he is so confident about it, but he is and so far it doesn't appear that this lot are talking out of their arse. That said it would appear the board think we can spend in Jan (I doubt massively - but with decent scouting and Smith I don't think we need a massive outlay) without trying to flog Jack quite safely. So I don't think it looks like 1,2 and 3 are the only options.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

7 minutes ago, romavillan said:

1. No way, Jack's a big part of the brummy revolution that' happening, I can't see him wanting to go now either, even if we don't get up this year.

2. If your premise is true then that would be the kind of reckless bullshit the last regime went for and not at all like what this new regime is saying they are all about. So no not comfortable with more recklessness.

3. If Jack's included then no I'm not happy, or McGinn or any of the younger more talented parts of the squad. Richards will be going out to pasture this summer, some other big earners are near the end of contracts, there's other ways saving will be made. Selling older players that still have some value I wouldn't be against. I'd back the new regime + Smith to invest better in getting the tools together to build a long term project which would see us go up and stay up.

The defence and the keep might be sorted out by recalling Elphick, signing a good young CB which doesn't break the bank and ditto for a keeper. Improving what we have as cover is simple as we don't have cover, but even gettign players good enough for the first XI with decent scouting and safe in the knowledge that Smith improves players we shouldn't have to break the bank.

Lots of assumptions made about FFP, Purslow was part of bringing it in, I'm not sure why he is so confident about it, but he is and so far it doesn't appear that this lot are talking out of their arse. That said it would appear the board think we can spend in Jan (I doubt massively - but with decent scouting and Smith I don't think we need a massive outlay) without trying to flog Jack quite safely. So I don't think it looks like 1,2 and 3 are the only options.

What he said.

[Cjay]

56 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

1) For £40m+ yes. I'd be gutted though.

2) Yeah because I trust the guy in charge. Probably unwise, but I'm feeling good about Aston Villa atm. We've got a lot of huge earners off the wage bill at the end of the season.

3) Don't see a question there. Sounds alright if we don't go up I suppose yeah. Don't want to sell Grealish though. I don't think he'll be itching to leave either, especially if we keep playing like this.

Sorry should have been clearer on 3.

Was basically is that scenario maybe the best aside from winning promotion and spending without sales.

Seems happier Grealish now he has found an end product.

[Cjay]

29 minutes ago, romavillan said:

1. No way, Jack's a big part of the brummy revolution that' happening, I can't see him wanting to go now either, even if we don't get up this year.

2. If your premise is true then that would be the kind of reckless bullshit the last regime went for and not at all like what this new regime is saying they are all about. So no not comfortable with more recklessness.

3. If Jack's included then no I'm not happy, or McGinn or any of the younger more talented parts of the squad. Richards will be going out to pasture this summer, some other big earners are near the end of contracts, there's other ways saving will be made. Selling older players that still have some value I wouldn't be against. I'd back the new regime + Smith to invest better in getting the tools together to build a long term project which would see us go up and stay up.

The defence and the keep might be sorted out by recalling Elphick, signing a good young CB which doesn't break the bank and ditto for a keeper. Improving what we have as cover is simple as we don't have cover, but even gettign players good enough for the first XI with decent scouting and safe in the knowledge that Smith improves players we shouldn't have to break the bank.

Lots of assumptions made about FFP, Purslow was part of bringing it in, I'm not sure why he is so confident about it, but he is and so far it doesn't appear that this lot are talking out of their arse. That said it would appear the board think we can spend in Jan (I doubt massively - but with decent scouting and Smith I don't think we need a massive outlay) without trying to flog Jack quite safely. So I don't think it looks like 1,2 and 3 are the only options.

True.

I honestly dont really understand it, i understand the premise and the basics but I'm no accountant and trying to dig deep is way beyond me.

My understanding of our ffp compliances and yours are mainly by reading what other far more aware people have written. 

There's quite a few on you written between May and September.

Think most were written based on some facts and some educated guess work but they all pointed to the same thing, a £30-40million gap that needed plugging regardless of new owners.

Whether that was wrong i dont know but on a personal level id ve quite annoyed if you and others were able to spend significant amounts in January.

I think there are clubs in this league that have been totally reckless with there spending in recent years, you, Birmingham, Derby, Wednesday to name a few.

And the bitter part of me i suppose wants to see those clubs that have lived beyond there means punished like we were.

Not because i dislike them, but i dislike whats happening to football.

I dislike that Manchester City can manipulate and play the system to get where they are.

I dislike that you can spend what was it £70million in 1 transfer period in the English 2nd tier. 

I dislike that clubs like Birmingham and Wednesday can piss away fortunes while other clubs like us for all our sins have been trying for years to run a tight ship.

There was an interview with the old Wigan chairman where he talked about how parachute payments were vital because they helped clubs make up the shortfall while adjusting there budgets for the lower league and without them many would go under.

But thats not what there used for,  there used by clubs that failed in previous years to try and buy there way back up and spend extortionate amounts of money totally unsustainable in the lower leagues and unaccessible to other clubs in the same league.

It creates a whole different market between the haves and have nots with parachute payment clubs pissing ridiculous amounts up the wall in desperation.

Its creating a mini Premier league where some teams have access to money that they dont deserve in truth, they only have it because they were crap the last year, and clubs who simply dont have it.

The counter is "yeah well just get promoted then". 

But that gets harder every year when more and more clubs come down with parachute payments. 

This has turned into a mini rant, my bad lol

Thanks for the response.

 

[romavillan]

I get where you're coming from, but in my eyes at least it should be less about spend and more about having the cash or not. Leeds got burned by inventing fake money speculating on future transfer fees that disappeared when results went south. It wasn't sustainable, then it spiralled from there. Portsmouth similar story. Football success has always been bought, always. Even before it was officially professional AVFC used to invent factory jobs for players that they didn't do to let them train, bonus' found in players boots to get around wage caps. It's been a feature of football since there was organised football.

It becomes a risk to a club if someone like Xia comes in and mortgages everything including future earnings for immediate liquidity to cover running costs. That's the express route to doom and not being around any more. The big clubs like FFP as it stands because it maintains the power where it is, so those at the top stay at the top. The gulf in the championship would be there even without parachute payments, clubs going down would have been getting an income that the bottom half of the championship couldn't even dream of. 

In a perfect world then the money created by the game would be shared out evenly and things would be much more fair. FFP *should* be about protecting clubs not protecting the status quo, it is what it is though. 

As to our spend though, if we get thousands more through the gates, sell more merchandise, get more telly appearances than a Burton or a Rotherham. Then that converts in to spending power, with the parachute payments then yes it does put us in a different "league" spend wise. The parachute payments exaggerate a gulf that exists without them too though, Rotherham aren't going to sell out a 42k stadium anytime soon. 

[TRO]

48 minutes ago, romavillan said:

I get where you're coming from, but in my eyes at least it should be less about spend and more about having the cash or not. Leeds got burned by inventing fake money speculating on future transfer fees that disappeared when results went south. It wasn't sustainable, then it spiralled from there. Portsmouth similar story. Football success has always been bought, always. Even before it was officially professional AVFC used to invent factory jobs for players that they didn't do to let them train, bonus' found in players boots to get around wage caps. It's been a feature of football since there was organised football.

It becomes a risk to a club if someone like Xia comes in and mortgages everything including future earnings for immediate liquidity to cover running costs. That's the express route to doom and not being around any more. The big clubs like FFP as it stands because it maintains the power where it is, so those at the top stay at the top. The gulf in the championship would be there even without parachute payments, clubs going down would have been getting an income that the bottom half of the championship couldn't even dream of. 

In a perfect world then the money created by the game would be shared out evenly and things would be much more fair. FFP *should* be about protecting clubs not protecting the status quo, it is what it is though. 

As to our spend though, if we get thousands more through the gates, sell more merchandise, get more telly appearances than a Burton or a Rotherham. Then that converts in to spending power, with the parachute payments then yes it does put us in a different "league" spend wise. The parachute payments exaggerate a gulf that exists without them too though, Rotherham aren't going to sell out a 42k stadium anytime soon. 

The money we all spend is just one part of the argument.....We have seen many managers spend decent funds and achieve only modest improvement, not enough to cover the damage created by the initial outlay...and the main reason is they haven't coached them or blended them in to a team.

We have just seen the difference first hand......We seen it with Ron Saunders too....we bought oodles of players before Ron to no avail.

Its one thing to have the money, its something else to buy well and blend well....its that, that has eluded us, for so long.

Edited December 5, 2018 by TRO

[Tony]

Completely hypothetical and I have no idea at all on the subject of law etc. However if we were to loose out on autos / prem over two points and because of that we had to sell players / face a fine over not meeting FFP, would villa have a case to say that there decisions (officiating) not being of a required standard has lead to this position, and I wouldn’t say be able to sue, however argue against said fine ? Because if I was villa and this imaginary scenario did happen, I’d deffo want to ask the question. 

[Made In Aston]

3 minutes ago, Tony said:

Completely hypothetical and I have no idea at all on the subject of law etc. However if we were to loose out on autos / prem over two points and because of that we had to sell players / face a fine over not meeting FFP, would villa have a case to say that there decisions (officiating) not being of a required standard has lead to this position, and I wouldn’t say be able to sue, however argue against said fine ? Because if I was villa and this imaginary scenario did happen, I’d deffo want to ask the question. 

No

[Tony]

2 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

No

Nicely elaborated 

[Made In Aston]

On 03/12/2018 at 11:31, cyrusr said:

Anyone else noticed that over the past 4/5 months or so there has been an extra £52 million in capital put into the club? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03375789/filing-history

 

 

Now I am pretty sure that's one way to deal with the issues of FFP and ensuring there is money for the January transfer window... 

It is to cover running costs and to dilute Dr NoFunds's shareholding. No impact in ffp whatsoever. 

[Made In Aston]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

Nicely elaborated 

Because it's a ridiculous scenario! Think about the implications for all the other clubs who had decisions go against them.